CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
3.5/10
335
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Agrega una trama en tu idiomaAn American writer, and his family, move into his late parent's derelict house in a remote village in rural Ireland. However, the village is riddled with mysterious secrets, seduction and in... Leer todoAn American writer, and his family, move into his late parent's derelict house in a remote village in rural Ireland. However, the village is riddled with mysterious secrets, seduction and intrigue.An American writer, and his family, move into his late parent's derelict house in a remote village in rural Ireland. However, the village is riddled with mysterious secrets, seduction and intrigue.
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Elenco
Regina Russell Banali
- Fantasy Woman
- (sin créditos)
Julie K. Smith
- Fantasy Woman
- (sin créditos)
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
'Wolfhound' is not a werewolf movie, per se, but it's not so terribly bad otherwise. It is filmed rather well for it's budget, IMHO. Yes there are transformations, but not into wolves...into dogs, particularly Irish Wolfhounds, thus the title. I actually thought the acting was rather good for such a production, especially the various sorts of 'local' people and most certainly Jennifer Courtney, playing the wife of the man who brings his family to Ireland to where his familial roots are. So, yes there is mystery, but not really any horror, so to label this a horror movie is a just a bit of a stretch. More of a fantasy. And keep in mind that not everyone who is a shapeshifter turns into a dog, some are birds, some foxes, etc. I should note that the animals who are in the film actually are filmed well enough to convey that they ARE acting, which, for animals, can be a bit rare. However, a good portion of the film is spent showing the '95 Playmate Of The Year, Julie Cialini. She is the main shapeshifter who entices our leading man. Yes, her physique is what is obviously on display here. Was this created as a vehicle for her? Hope not. Poor thing, she really can't act. Especially for a character who's supposed to have lived in this Irish village all her life, she sounds like an cheerleader from the U.S., you know, somewhere in the mid-west. Overall, if you are interested in werewolf movies, this is not one. See only if you a) don't mind soft porn b) are interested in fantasy-mysteries involving concepts such as shapeshifting.
Wolfhound looks great which was a real surprise and treat, but who can tell what's going on? Part Shining and part Wolfen, an Irishman returns to the Old World with his family to write a book and fights his wolfen ancestry. This movie defines the term gratuitous nudity. The final battle is ridiculous and confusing. Jennifer Courtney looks like Jill Clayburgh.
Well, this movie, to tell the truth, is a total crap. No story, no acting, no mature screenplay... just sex which covered 50% of the movie. The director made a blunt effort to insert some plot with that morphology-changing ability of the villagers but that turned out to be a sheer flop. The actors, especially the child ones, are not worth to mention. Julie Cialini, the "star" of the film did her part, which consisted of nothing hard, well. The cinematography is horrible and senseless. Some childish special effects are also seen.
Two things are worth for a brief notice about the film. One is shooting location, which is nice; and the other is the background music during sex scenes. But if you're going to waste your bucks just for that, I have nothing more to say.
Two things are worth for a brief notice about the film. One is shooting location, which is nice; and the other is the background music during sex scenes. But if you're going to waste your bucks just for that, I have nothing more to say.
Oh boy.
From the moment 'Wolfhound' begins it's so inescapably ham-handed that it feels very much like a picture made for TV. The writing and the direction are both just as bluntly, strenuously forced, forthright, and frank. So it is, too, with the music, and the acting; whether this is owing to the cast's capabilities, or a reflection of guidance from the directors, is up for debate.
I appreciate that the movie was filmed on location in Ireland. I think the concept of the narrative, while hardly unfamiliar, holds promise, and the lore that is the basis of the plot is enticing. But value in the screenplay is thwarted by its unseemly bent toward salaciousness and the unmistakably artless directness of the filmmakers. Moreover, the story as it is written is weak and specious, with connections between scenes that are often less than credible. There's almost no consideration at all for continuity; day and night come and go within juxtaposed concurrent scenes.
In fairness, of course - hey, to each their own. 'Wolfhound' makes no apologies for what it is, and adopts no pretense otherwise. This is clearly intended for audiences seeking minor titillation in the suggested eroticism, and that's fine. I should have known what I was getting into when I sat to watch. Yet with that in mind, too, I think even viewers actively seeking out titles like this would be hard-pressed to deny the deficiencies that abound.
Consider: Most shots featuring canines have the appearance of having been filmed on a rudimentary cell phone camera. This especially goes for an early fleeting scene of action, when exceptionally blurry and indistinct camerawork suggests that for lack of trained animals or meaningful ability to capture these instances as desired, actors simply roughhoused with the animals, and this is passed off as a genuine struggle. We also get a single shot of what is absolutely a puppet standing in for a real dog. Meanwhile, nudity and sexuality is so tawdrily direct (there's that word again) as to be bereft of real sensuality. Sex scenes aren't invigorating - they're equally ham-fisted, awkward, and unconvincing.
There are a few good ideas here. I think the transformation effects are marginally better compared to some other films out there. Sparing instances of swell delivery and nuance of expression portend finesse of performance that the cast at best broadly has difficulty achieving.
But plot and earnest entertainment is at most a secondary concern of all involved. What genuine worth this could have had is rendered almost entirely inert by poor, careless execution. I can't really imagine recommending 'Wolfhound' to anyone. I should have known better, and maybe if someone comes across these words before clicking "play," I can at least impart the appropriate forewarning.
From the moment 'Wolfhound' begins it's so inescapably ham-handed that it feels very much like a picture made for TV. The writing and the direction are both just as bluntly, strenuously forced, forthright, and frank. So it is, too, with the music, and the acting; whether this is owing to the cast's capabilities, or a reflection of guidance from the directors, is up for debate.
I appreciate that the movie was filmed on location in Ireland. I think the concept of the narrative, while hardly unfamiliar, holds promise, and the lore that is the basis of the plot is enticing. But value in the screenplay is thwarted by its unseemly bent toward salaciousness and the unmistakably artless directness of the filmmakers. Moreover, the story as it is written is weak and specious, with connections between scenes that are often less than credible. There's almost no consideration at all for continuity; day and night come and go within juxtaposed concurrent scenes.
In fairness, of course - hey, to each their own. 'Wolfhound' makes no apologies for what it is, and adopts no pretense otherwise. This is clearly intended for audiences seeking minor titillation in the suggested eroticism, and that's fine. I should have known what I was getting into when I sat to watch. Yet with that in mind, too, I think even viewers actively seeking out titles like this would be hard-pressed to deny the deficiencies that abound.
Consider: Most shots featuring canines have the appearance of having been filmed on a rudimentary cell phone camera. This especially goes for an early fleeting scene of action, when exceptionally blurry and indistinct camerawork suggests that for lack of trained animals or meaningful ability to capture these instances as desired, actors simply roughhoused with the animals, and this is passed off as a genuine struggle. We also get a single shot of what is absolutely a puppet standing in for a real dog. Meanwhile, nudity and sexuality is so tawdrily direct (there's that word again) as to be bereft of real sensuality. Sex scenes aren't invigorating - they're equally ham-fisted, awkward, and unconvincing.
There are a few good ideas here. I think the transformation effects are marginally better compared to some other films out there. Sparing instances of swell delivery and nuance of expression portend finesse of performance that the cast at best broadly has difficulty achieving.
But plot and earnest entertainment is at most a secondary concern of all involved. What genuine worth this could have had is rendered almost entirely inert by poor, careless execution. I can't really imagine recommending 'Wolfhound' to anyone. I should have known better, and maybe if someone comes across these words before clicking "play," I can at least impart the appropriate forewarning.
I try to be positive when watching a movie. I usually don't bring many expectations to the table. Generally, I can find something worthwhile in any movie I watch, even when the movie sucks ass. However, except for the ample cleavage, this movie totally sucks in every department.
The acting is very amateurish all around, the writing is poverty-row (at best), the cinematography is quite poor in a lot of places (lots of out of focus shots), and the "special effects" are laughable. Plus, this movie has a couple of the worst child actors I've ever seen! Damn!!!! I wanted to smack them every time they appeared on screen.
I walked into this with an open mind, but for all my efforts, I just ended up getting robbed of money and 80 minutes of my life that I'll never get back!
The acting is very amateurish all around, the writing is poverty-row (at best), the cinematography is quite poor in a lot of places (lots of out of focus shots), and the "special effects" are laughable. Plus, this movie has a couple of the worst child actors I've ever seen! Damn!!!! I wanted to smack them every time they appeared on screen.
I walked into this with an open mind, but for all my efforts, I just ended up getting robbed of money and 80 minutes of my life that I'll never get back!
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaRegina Russell Banali and Julie K. Smith (uncredited in the film) came directly from the set of Jim Wynorski's film Bad Bizness (2003) to film a scene, their hair still styled from shooting scenes earlier that day.
- ErroresWhen the dad gets out of bed, he's wearing a sleeveless white T-shirt and undershorts. As he walks into the kitchen moments later, he wears jeans and no shirt. When he walks outside, he wears a jacket over a shirt.
- Versiones alternativasThe unrated version contains an extra 6 minutes of nudity
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 20 minutos
- Color
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta